Contract trap · Any contract
'As is', capped liability
Service provided 'as is / as available' with all warranties disclaimed; liability capped at $10-$100 or fees paid in the last 3-12 months; consequential loss excluded; 'no method of transmission is 100% secure' used to disclaim breach liability; and the user must 'defend, indemnify and hold harmless' the company with no reciprocal duty or cap.
- Severity
- Serious
- How often it turns up
- Almost always
- Holds up?
- Depends where you are
- Clause phrases
- 36
What it looks like in a contract
Redline matches these phrases against your document verbatim. Drafters rarely invent new wording — they copy it, which is why the same sentences turn up across unrelated contracts.
In English-language contracts
- no warranty of any kind
- provided "as is"
- in no event shall
- to the maximum extent permitted by law
- aggregate liability
- shall not exceed the amount you paid
- AS IS
- AS AVAILABLE
- WITH ALL FAULTS
- disclaims all warranties, express or implied
- in no event shall our aggregate liability exceed
- the greater of $100 or the amounts you paid in the past twelve months
- indirect, incidental, special, consequential or punitive damages
- even if we have been advised of the possibility of such damages
- no method of transmission over the Internet is 100% secure
- we are not responsible for unauthorized access
- you agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless
- including reasonable attorneys' fees
In Russian-language contracts
- без каких-либо гарантий
- предоставляется «как есть»
- ни при каких обстоятельствах не несёт ответственности
- в максимально допустимой законом степени
- не превышает стоимости
- ответственность ограничена суммой
- Сервис предоставляется «как есть» (as is)
- предоставляется на условиях «как есть» и «по мере доступности»
- по принципу «как есть» и «со всеми ошибками»
- не дает никаких гарантий или заверений
- не несет ответственности за любые убытки
- упущенную выгоду
- ответственность ограничена суммой, уплаченной Пользователем
- ни при каких обстоятельствах
- Оператор не гарантирует безопасность персональных данных
- Оператор не несёт ответственности за утечку
- Пользователь обязуется возместить Компании любые убытки
- оградить Компанию от претензий третьих лиц
Check your own contract
Paste a clause, a page or the whole document. Nothing leaves your browser: the matching runs here, on this page, against the phrases above.
Why it bites
If the service loses your data, is breached, wrongly bans you or bricks your device, recovery is trivial while your own exposure is uncapped; SMBs carry all downtime and security risk; many exclusions are void against consumers but still deter claims.
Is it enforceable where you are
The same clause can be routine in one country and void in another. What follows is what the law says where you are — not advice on your particular contract.
In the US, unconscionability and the FTC Act §5 bar on unfair and deceptive practices are the general backstops; in the EU and the UK, consumer standard terms are tested under Directive 93/13 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
United States
Conspicuous disclaimers and liability caps are generally enforceable under general contract law (for sales of goods, UCC 2-316 / 2-719); caps do not excuse fraud or gross negligence, consumer statutes (Magnuson-Moss for goods, state UDAP laws) limit disclaimers, and the FTC still requires reasonable data security regardless of contract wording.
- Cited
- FTC
- UCC
- UDAP
European Union
93/13 Annex (a),(b) — excluding liability for death/injury or inappropriately limiting rights for non-performance is unfair; Digital Content Directive 2019/770 conformity remedies cannot be excluded; GDPR Art 32/82 cannot be contracted out; German §307 BGB strikes blanket indemnities and B2B standard-form exclusions for gross negligence.
- Cited
- §307 BGB
- 93/13 Annex (a)
- Directive 2019/770
- GDPR Art 32/82
United Kingdom
CRA 2015 ss.31, 47, 57, 65 — cannot exclude death/personal injury or conformity rights; UCTA 1977 ss.2-3 reasonableness for B2B standard terms (Goodlife Foods v Hall Fire 2018 upheld a broad exclusion); Sch 2 paras 1-2, 6; CMA37 flags sweeping indemnities.
- Cited
- CMA37
- CRA 2015 ss.31
- Goodlife Foods v Hall Fire
- UCTA 1977 ss.2-3
Russia
ст. 16 п. 2 пп. 4 ЗоЗПП — исключение/ограничение ответственности исполнителя ничтожно; ст. 400 п. 2 ГК — ограничение ответственности по договору присоединения с потребителем ничтожно; ст. 401 п. 4 ГК; ст. 19, 17 152-ФЗ — обязанность обеспечивать безопасность и возмещать вред, с 30 мая 2025 (420-ФЗ) оборотные штрафы за утечки; ст. 406.1 ГК (возмещение потерь) только между предпринимателями; в B2B — ст. 15, 400 ГК, ст. 428/10 ГК против асимметрии.
- Cited
- 152-ФЗ
- 420-ФЗ
- ст. 15
- ст. 16 п. 2 пп. 4 ЗоЗПП
- ст. 19
- ст. 400 п. 2 ГК
- ст. 401 п. 4 ГК
- ст. 406.1 ГК
Where this has actually happened
Regulator actions, court rulings and the contracts they were fought over.
- Microsoft Services Agreement — damages capped at the monthly fee or '$10.00 if the Services are free'
- Discord Terms of Service — liability capped at the greater of three months' payments or $100
- Steam Subscriber Agreement — 'AS IS', 'AS AVAILABLE', 'with all faults'
- FTC v. Ring (2023) — $5.8M for security failures despite privacy assurances
- Goodlife Foods Ltd v Hall Fire Protection Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1371
What to do
In order, from the thing that takes a minute to the thing that takes a letter.
- Keep independent backups
- SMB: negotiate mutual caps (fees paid), mutual consequential-loss exclusions, security/breach carve-outs and indemnities limited to third-party IP claims caused by your breach
- After a breach demand incident details and claim damages (GDPR Art 82
- RU ст. 17 152-ФЗ, ст. 15 ЗоЗПП)
- Statutory conformity and security duties override disclaimers (EU/UK digital-content rules
- RU ст. 400 ГК, ст. 16 ЗоЗПП).
Traps that travel with it
Drafters who use one of these usually use several.